Heh. The other day I drove past a 6 foot, erect penis, complete with balls, that somebody had made out of the snow. Good luck trying to find a good article of clothing for that one.

This is becoming a bigger and bigger stereotype for Americans. Even they themselves are aware of it. Many people have addressed this issue and complained about it. This is from the movie “The People vs Larry Flint” (about the guy who started Hustler Magazine).

Those were my two cents.If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.This space for rent.

There's plenty of prudes here, but it really depends on whom you talk to. It's not a unified state of being.

If it makes you feel any better, the poll is currently at 65% for the covering being a double standard.

And Utah is Utah. We live in a land of far ranging demographics.

“You tell yourself to just enjoy the process,” he added. “That whether you succeed or fail, win or lose, it will be fine. You pretend to be Zen. You adopt detachment, and ironic humor, while secretly praying for a miracle.”

This isn't “America” covering up something. We all know it only takes one busybody in a neighborhood to make a big issue out of something. It's so easy for somebody to see something like this happen in one small neighborhood in a GIANT country and say, “Oh! Americans are ________!” America is a melting pot. Of course you're going to get varying degrees of prudishness.

One other side to this discussion is that morality is subjective. It's always easier to believe, “the way those people think are wrong” when it's just as valid to ask yourself, “is the way I think necessarily right?” There is no final verdict on pornography and there never will be, just varying degrees of acceptance.

While obviously not everyoen in America is prudish (since it was Americans who built the statue) I do think they are on average a lot more prudish then people over here.Thats the impression I always get.

I remember when I lived in Utah they put covers over the front of magazines with women on. And I dont mean porn mags, I mean Cosmopolitan!

Are Americans as prudish as they are starting to seem?Can I post a picture of a boob and scare them all off this thread?

No. They are not prudish. It is all a product of fake neo-conism.

You gotta love these neocons.

Naked women are SO IMMORAL AND SO EVIL.

Meanwhile… piles of dead bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan are so cool.

Want more cognitive dissonance?

How about these fake liberal feminists who love to bitch and moan about “woman objectification” on one hand. But on the other hand, its all right to bare all. Girrrrrlll powwweeerrrr!!! Bear your breasts! Burn your bras! No to the oppressive patriarchy who makes women wear skirts!!!

Its not just America that suffers from cognitive dissonance.

Its everywhere.

Look at Britain. I wish I had a dollar for every instance of police stupidity / brutality / roboticness and Big Brother surveillance I saw on the British news.

I donâ€™t think Americans in general are very prudish at all. We have very liberal laws protecting free expression in this country, but the important thing is that the display be limited to a venue where no one is forced to see it who doesnâ€™t wish to.

We are weird about some things here, though. America still takes a very draconian view for example on drugs and prostitution. From what I can tell, most of the negative perceptions Americans have of sex stem from a feminist standpoint, not a puritanical one. So itâ€™s sort of the reverse of conservative puritanism and more like a highly aggressive pseudo-progressivism at workâ€¦ though thatâ€™s just as bad in my opinion.

kyupolHow about these fake liberal feminists who love to bitch and moan about “woman objectification” on one hand. But on the other hand, its all right to bare all. Girrrrrlll powwweeerrrr!!! Bear your breasts! Burn your bras! No to the oppressive patriarchy who makes women wear skirts!!!

There's no contradiction here, you're confusing different things.

For a start there's a difference between controlling your own sexuality and having someone else control it. Secondly, most of the women angry over objectification and those that bare all are not the same women.

El CidFrom what I can tell, most of the negative perceptions Americans have of sex stem from a feminist standpoint, not a puritanical one. So itâ€™s sort of the reverse of conservative puritanism and more like a highly aggressive pseudo-progressivism at workâ€¦ though thatâ€™s just as bad in my opinion.

That's not the case at all. You have it backward there- the prudishness comes straight from the puritanical origins, it has a very clear pedigree.The “highly aggressive pseudo-progressivism” you describe came later as a part of a branch of the 70's feminist movement. And that's only responsible for some attitudes and policy even now, mostly you have conservative advocates for puritanical prudish notions using aspects of feminist rhetoric to pretty up their old ideas.

I've done some interesting reading on the subject. The same thing happens everywhere. In Australia a notable example was a senator called Brian Harradine who used that line to jusify his anti-porn stance.

In reality a big part of it is patriarchal protectiveness: “We must protect weak women from the evil sex hungry men as well as their own evil sexual desires”, that's the classic line throughout Western and Eastern civilisation seen manifest in everything from Indian Purdah, Islamic headscarves and veils, Jewish Orthodox wigs, nuns, and so on.Now that same patriarchal attitude takes the form of “protecting” children from the idea of sexuality. Now that it's not so easy to treat women as infants needing protecting we treat children as women needing constant chaperoning instead. Even though the reality is that most of that worry over sexuality and children is about sexuality that is alien to them anyway and mainly projected onto them by adults.

So you don't find it telling that puritan rhetoric doesn't grow legs until it pretties itself up with feminist language? That's where it finds resonance with the bulk of the population. How many times do you hear people, normal everyday people, talk about women's “evil sexual desires?” That's not what normal people care about. But what I do hear people talk about with way too much regularity is that pin-ups and pornography “objectify” women and garbage along those lines. That's what most people are concerned about.

Gotta be careful not to pigeonhole this as a “feminism” or a “puritan” issue though. This really is a multi-headed serpent we're dealing with. There are so many players, from the religious kooks to the family values crowd to the social engineers. They've all got different motivations.

El CidSo you don't find it telling that puritan rhetoric doesn't grow legs until it pretties itself up with feminist language? That's where it finds resonance with the bulk of the population.

No.You're still looking at it the wrong way.

The idea didn't grow any legs. The puritanical view of pornography is exactly the same as it always was, the 70's feminist rhetoric has just been borrowed as the current terminology. The concerns and issues are still the same as they were when Jesus and Mohamed were boys.

Just because people currently use that 70's Feminist rhetoric now doesn't mean they understand it or even know anything at all about it or care about feminism in the slightest.

—————–You can see similar trends in other spheres. A core with a particular agenda adopts aspects of the language of another issue to further their cause. That then becomes the language used by the sympathetic masses for that same cause. -it has nothing to do with the original intent.

-Those who are nationalist and anti-immigration now dress up their rhetoric with “concerns” over People Smuggling and or terrorism.-Nuclear industry advocates have now adopted Global Warming and the language of the Green Movement to advance their cause.-Countries with brutal regimes are now using the language of “Terrorism” re-brand their actions when they crack down on dissidents.-In the 1970's paedophiles tacked themselves on to the growing gay rights movement to try and make themselves look acceptable.

In the case of puritanical attitudes, the same people and the same types of people retain those same opinions. The language of 70's feminism is just the current jargon used to express them.

As an American, I can tell you one thing: the uptight people are what I'd call the “vocal minority”. They represent a very small part of the population, yet have their voices heard so often you'd think they speak for everyone in this country. Of course, these people make the rest of us, who actually bother to do some critical thinking on a subject before opening our mouths with some preconceived opinion, look bad in the rest of the world's eyes.

The US is a country of huge contradictions. It is a country where film censors can effectively kill a movie's commercial prospects simply by giving it an adult (NC17 ?) rating but which also decided pornography is protected by its constitutional right to free speech.

On balance, though, I'd say that the US is more prudish than the UK. I can remember being told I wasn't allowed to walk around Disney World without a shirt, for example. The only other place I've faced that kind of reaction has been in the vicinity of religious sites such as St Mark's in Venice!

The reason, I think, is that the US is such a vast country with such a huge population that even its minorities are large enough to influence policy makers and public opinion if only they are prepared to be vocal. For that reason, it only needs one or two of its many, many churches or lobby groups to campaign against something and politicians have to take notice or risk losing their position.

El CidOzone: That all sounds like rubbish to me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

That's not just me I'm afraid. It's what the literature says as well.How do you imagine that the masses care about seminal 1970's feminism? I mean, stuff like the Female Eunuch was popular, but not THAT popular. ;)

It's the same situation with things like “political correctness”. Everybody hates it but few really know where it actually came from and what it was really originally about. Now it's widely seen as a term for describing everything from bureaucratic interference in simple everyday tasks, excessive liberal attitudes, externally enforced behavioural modes etc. All of which is pure shit of course, but everyone just “knows” what the term means and it fits nicely when they want to tell you why they should be allowed to act like an arsehole.

ozoneoceanThat's not just me I'm afraid. It's what the literature says as well.How do you imagine that the masses care about seminal 1970's feminism? I mean, stuff like the Female Eunuch was popular, but not THAT popular. ;)

I just love it when people throw that in. “The Literature” says so. “Yeah, I know I couldn't make a convincing argument but trust me, The Literature says I'm right. So there's no point in discussion, becuz it's all been predetermined.” Yawn. Whatever. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, however superior you may think it is, and belittling women's struggle for equal rights doesn't make it any more persuasive. I'm thoroughly convinced you believe all of that, and trying to point you in another direction would not be worth the energy. Sorry, but if the fundies have to dress their rhetoric up in other clothes to sell it, then the population must not be fundies. If everybody loves hamburgers, then you don't have to call them “hot dogs” to sell them.

*sigh*

No, no I'm not going to bother with this one. Too trivial. Have a nice day.

El CidI just love it when people throw that in. “The Literature” says so. "Yeah, I know I couldn't make a convincing argument …

Orly? Since I was replying to…

El CidThat all sounds like rubbish to me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Hypocrisy much? Certainly not a “convincing argument”, and a bit of a “superior” attitude.

“Belittle woman's struggle”? That''s a singular interpretation, but no stranger than this bizarre notion that contemporary prudish attitudes to sex stem directly from modern feminism. So we have to completely dismiss and ignore all the obvious evidence of widespread prudish attitudes to sexuality and sexual imagery that existed in North America since its inception and create a whole new reality where people only started to have a problem with sex from 1970 onwards?

In the “opinion” stakes, you're further out on an unsupported limb than I.Whatever.

—————————-

—THE STUFF BELOW IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO EL CID—

As to the topic, I' said earlier that America produces and consumes most of the world's hardcore porn. Perhaps that in itself stems from that puritanical prudish streak? That's certainly not an original theory. The thinking goes something like this: being more hidden, private, and publicly taboo makes nudity and sexuality all the more exciting and dangerous. It is only “porn” because it is taboo and private, separated from that public sphere. If that is the case, the whole world has a LOT to thank the puritanical origins of the United states for! :)

El CidI just love it when people throw that in. “The Literature” says so. "Yeah, I know I couldn't make a convincing argument …

Orly? Since I was replying to…

El CidThat all sounds like rubbish to me, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Hypocrisy much? Certainly not a “convincing argument”, and a bit of a “superior” attitude.

Hey Ozone, when somebody makes it clear to you that theyâ€™re not interested in discussing something, youâ€™re perfectly entitled to respond, but using the opportunity to call that person a â€œhypocriteâ€ behind their back is just flamebaiting. The statement you're referring to wasn't even a fucking argument; I was saying that your statements were not at all convincing to me (they weren't), but I wasn't going to attack them. There was no air of “superiority” intended. The reason I made the first statement, which you're using out of its original context, was to illustrate that you were making an appeal to authority, which is an elementary logical fallacy. Unfortunately you were too busy intellectually masturbating to even notice when you make a basic rhetorical error.

And also, thank you for grossly misinterpreting my position. You've just broadcast that you never had any intention of considering other people's viewpoints. Thanks. But as I said before, I'm not discussing this topic. Would have been nice if you could have shown a little class.

regardless, it's pointless to assume ANY group of people acts a certain way because of a few loose screws that force their views into the lime light through sheer volume. suffice to say stupid loud people are far too prone to being allowed to have their way to shut 'em up.

Writing something about someone on a thread that everyone can read isn't behind that person's back. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

But back to the real argument…

The US(and Canada) are a lot more prudish the the UK, in my experience.

When I was in Hastings, I watched a diet show where at one point they were exercising naked - nothing was flaunted, but nothing was censored either. So I saw some chubby people's naughty bits. I wasn't horrified or offended, but I thought “Wow, they would never show this back home”.The same thing happened when I was walking around London with my elderly aunt. We walked past a giant billboard with a naked man - only his bum was showing but still, he was definitely naked. I was kind of :O, but my aunt didn't seem to think anything of it.

Duchess of Friday Newsposts and the holy Top TenHave a comic milestone, a community project or some comic-related news you’d like to see ina newspost? Send it to me via PQ or at hippievannews(at)gmail.com!

Taking things very personally. You tend to get very waspy at times. Whatever. Your argument is strange, (the one about feminism). That's my point.——————————-

—THE STUFF BELOW IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO EL CID—

A lot of this thread agrees that there's a strong streak of the prudish in North America, taking Hippy's post, Harkovast, DAJB, and Product placement on-board. So then why the difference in the US from other Western countries? Is it that strongly celebrated puritanical origin? The protestant Christian movement (in many different flavours) has always had a bit more of an issue with public sexuality than a lot of the other social movements in the West and that particular part of Christianity was a massive factor in the formation of the states and a strong and lasting influence on the formation of the modern culture.It's certainly possible. It's been noted many times that the US is the only first world country where religion is actually getting more followers.

I don't think it's the fault of religion, or Christianity though, not particularly. I'd be more inclined to blame the community culture that surrounds those religious movements. Once you have social attitudes ingrained in a community they can tend to be self perpetuating. Maybe it was the religious influence to begin with, but now it's there and ingrained, any further directive from the religious side would just act as a sort of crude reinforcement, if people even bother listening to it at all.

I am completely uninterested in that aspect of the conversation, which is why I only spared it two lines. ;)It's pretty well done with and I don't even think El Cid cares to keep it going. Arguments like that contribute nothing.

…Which is why I continue to try and get back to the topic of this thread, and why the rest of my post and the one previous had nothing to do with El Cid and everything to do with the topic of this thread and what other's have posted :(–I'll edit them just to make that clearer. ^_^

SO, since most people here agree that the US is somewhat more prudish than most other Western countries, WHY is that the case? It'd be interesting if you gave your opinion on that DAJB. I've given mine

ozoneoceanSO, since most people here agree that the US is somewhat more prudish than most other Western countries, WHY is that the case? It'd be interesting if you gave your opinion on that DAJB. I've given mine

I have. I gave my thoughts in my first post here:

DAJBThe reason, I think, is that the US is such a vast country with such a huge population that even its minorities are large enough to influence policy makers and public opinion if only they are prepared to be vocal. For that reason, it only needs one or two of its many, many churches or lobby groups to campaign against something and politicians have to take notice or risk losing their position.

ozoneoceanSO, since most people here agree that the US is somewhat more prudish than most other Western countries, WHY is that the case? It'd be interesting if you gave your opinion on that DAJB. I've given mine

I have. I gave my thoughts in my first post here:

DAJBThe reason, I think, is that the US is such a vast country with such a huge population that even its minorities are large enough to influence policy makers and public opinion if only they are prepared to be vocal. For that reason, it only needs one or two of its many, many churches or lobby groups to campaign against something and politicians have to take notice or risk losing their position.

You think so? Minorities can only ever have a partial influence over political policy, and surely political policy doesn't drive the general moral views and attitudes to nudity etc. of all the rest of the country?

The attitudes Hippie and Product-placement describe aren't those of politically driven outcry or extreme reactions, just general opinion.

…and if the general public and average attitudes ARE indeed slightly more strict towards public sexuality in the US, then why is that the case?You don't seem to think they are more strict in the US but only seem that way?

ozoneoceanand if the general public and average attitudes ARE indeed slightly more strict towards public sexuality in the US, then why is that the case?

That's a very interesting question! I have no idea of the answer. A study should be done!

Although I wasn't actually talking about sexuality, but nudity in a non-sexual way. That's another interesting thing! The US seems to be fine with sexuality without nudity in the media, but not the other way around.

Duchess of Friday Newsposts and the holy Top TenHave a comic milestone, a community project or some comic-related news you’d like to see ina newspost? Send it to me via PQ or at hippievannews(at)gmail.com!

Hippie VanAlthough I wasn't actually talking about sexuality, but nudity in a non-sexual way. That's another interesting thing! The US seems to be fine with sexuality without nudity in the media, but not the other way around.

I think they feel it's like haveing your cake and eating it do. You can be as sexual as you want but keep your pants on so it isn't “dirty” or “pornagraphic”.